{"id":25167,"date":"2000-03-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-03-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000"},"modified":"2015-10-28T07:44:42","modified_gmt":"2015-10-28T02:14:42","slug":"bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000","title":{"rendered":"Bir Singh & Ors vs Pyare Singh & Ors on 6 March, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bir Singh & Ors vs Pyare Singh & Ors on 6 March, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: D.P.Mohapatra<\/div>\n
Bench: S.S.Ahmad, D.P.Mohapatro<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBIR SINGH & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPYARE SINGH & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t06\/03\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.S.Ahmad, D.P.Mohapatro\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      D.P.MOHAPATRA,J.\n<\/p>\n
      On  analysis  of\tthe  case of  the  parties  and\t the
\ncontentions raised on their behalf the question which arises
\nfor  determination is whether in the facts and circumstances
\nof  the\t case  the appellants can be said  to  be  khatedar
\ntenants\t of  the  land\tin dispute.  If\t this  question\t is
\nanswered  in  the affirmative then the further question\t for
\nconsideration will be whether the right of the appellants in
\nthe land in dispute was extinguished under section 12 of the
\nRajasthan  Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Tenancy  Act).
\nThe  High  Court  of  Rajasthan having\tanswered  the  first
\nquestion  in  the  negative  and dismissed the\tsuit  ,\t the
\nplaintiffs are in appeal against the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      The   factual   matrix  of   the\tcase  relevant\t for
\nappreciation  of  the  question for  determination,  may  be
\nstated\tthus  :\t – Late Chet Singh held zamindari rights  in
\nrespect\t  of   the  disputed   land  situated\tin   Village
\nMohammadpur,  of  Tehsil-Dholpur in the State of  Rajasthan.
\nAs he was serving in the army he had engaged Sohan Singh for
\ncultivation  of\t the land.  Since Sohan Singh got  his\tname
\nrecorded  in  the revenue records as the owner of  the\tland
\nChet  Singh  filed a suit, against him before the  Assistant
\nCollector,  Dholpur.   In  the said suit  a  compromise\t was
\nentered\t into  between\tthe parties and\t possession  of\t the
\nproperty was delivered by Sohan Singh to Chet Singh.  In the
\nsaid  compromise  it  was averred that Chet  Singh  was\t the
\nKhudkasht  Kashatkar  of the disputed land and that  Sohan
\nSingh voluntarily handed over possession of the land to Chet
\nSingh.\n<\/p>\n
      Chet  Singh mortgaged the land with Charan Singh for a
\nperiod\tof ten years for satisfaction of the loan  amounting
\nto   Rs.300\/-  vide  the   registered  mortgage\t deed  dated
\n22.9.1956.    Chet  Singh  expired  in\t1965   leaving\t the
\nappellants as his legal heirs.\tAs Charan Singh did not hand
\nover  possession of the land even after expiry of the period
\nof mortgage the appellants filed a suit, under Section 43(3)
\nread  with  Section  183 of the Tenancy Act  against  Charan
\nSingh  seeking\trecovery  of possession of  the\t land.\t The
\nAdditional  District Collector, by the order dated 12.5.1983
\nin  case  no.  142\/82 decreed the suit and  directed  Charan
\nSingh  to hand over vacant possession of the land in dispute
\nto  the\t appellants declaring them as  Khatedar\t kashtkar.
\nCharan Singh was further directed to pay to the appellants a
\nsum  of\t Rs.3400\/- as penalty for illegal occupation of\t the
\nland during the seventeen agricultural years after expiry of
\nthe  mortgage period.  In the appeal, Appeal no.253 of 1983,
\nfiled  by  Charan  Singh the  Revenue  Appellate  Authority,
\nBharatpur  by the order dated 15.7.1985 dismissed the appeal
\nand   confirmed\t the  order  of\t the   Additional   District
\nCollector.   The  second  appeal, RTA  no.144\/85,  filed  by
\nCharan\tSingh before the Rajasthan Revenue Appellate  Board,
\nwas  dismissed\tby the order dated 22.6.1993.  Charan  Singh
\nexpired\t on 25.2.1991 during pendency of the appeal and\t the
\nrespondents herein were substituted as his legal heirs.\t The
\nrespondents  challenged\t the order of the Revenue  Appellate
\nBoard  in  CWP No.4159\/93 before the Rajasthan\tHigh  Court.
\nThe  High Court by the Jugdment dated 24.2.1994 allowed\t the
\nwrit   petition,  quashed  the\t concurrent  orders  of\t the
\nstatutory  authorities\tand  dismissed the suit.   The\tsaid
\njudgment is under challenge in the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      The  thrust  of  the submissions made by\tthe  learned
\ncounsel\t for the appellants is that the High Court erred  in
\nreversing   the\t concurrent  decisions\t of  the   statutory
\nauthorities  on\t the  erroneous finding that  they  are\t not
\nentitled  to  recover  possession of land in  dispute.\t The
\nlearned\t counsel  contends  that   after  abolition  of\t the
\nZamindari  right  of  the  appellants  under  the  Rajasthan
\nZamindari  and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959 [for short the
\nZamindari  Abolition  Act] the appellants were entitled\t to
\nretain\tthe  land  in  dispute which was  a  part  of  their
\nkhudkasht land as recorded in the revenue records.\n<\/p>\n
      The learned counsel for the respondents supporting the
\nimpugned  judgment submitted that in view of the  undisputed
\nfactual\t position that the appellants were not in occupation
\nof  the land in dispute on the date the Zamindari  Abolition
\nAct  came into force they could not retain possession of the
\nland,  notwithstanding\tthe  entry in  the  revenue  records
\nshowing\t the land as khudkasht.\t He placed reliance on the
\ndecision  of  this  Court in the case of Budha\tVs.   Amilal
\n[1991 Supp.(2) SCC 41].\n<\/p>\n
      Undisputedly,  the plaintiff had lost possession\tover
\nthe  land in dispute by 22 September, 1956 when the mortgage
\ndeed  was  registered.\t It  is\t not  in  dispute  that\t the
\nplaintiff  was\tseeking\t recovery  of  possession  from\t the
\nmortgagee Charan Singh in the suit filed in September, 1967.
\nIt is also an accepted position that the land in dispute was
\nshown in the revenue record as khudkasht land.\tIt is also
\naccepted  position  that Chet Singh, the predecessor in\t the
\ninterest  of the appellants, held Zamindari right over\tland
\nin dispute.  In this backdrop the question for consideration
\nis  whether after enforcement of the Zamindari Abolition Act
\nthe plaintiffs could claim right of possession over the land
\nin  dispute.   From  the  orders  passed  by  the  statutory
\nauthorities   it   appears  that   this\t question  was\t not
\nspecifically adverted to by the authorities.  They proceeded
\nto  determine the controversy on the basis of the provisions
\nin Sections 10 and 12 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.\n<\/p>\n
      In  section 2(3) of the Zamindari Abolition Act land
\nmeans  every  class or category of land forming part  of  an
\nestate and includes<\/p>\n
      (a) benefits to arise out of such land,<\/p>\n
      (b)  things  attached  to\t the  earth  or\t permanently
\nfastened to anything attached to the earth,<\/p>\n
      (c) sites of villages or towns,<\/p>\n
      (d)  beds\t of  tanks, ponds, embankments,\t rivers\t and
\nwater channels, and<\/p>\n
      (e) surface of hills<\/p>\n
      Under  sub-section(5)  of\t the said section  the\tterm
\nZamindar  has the meaning assigned to it by clause (46) of
\nsection\t  5  of\t the  Tenancy\tAct  and  includes  a  malik
\n(landowner)  in\t the  Gang Canal  area.\t  Sub-section(6)  of
\nsection 2 provides that words and expressions defined in the
\nTenancy\t Act  and  in the Rajasthan Land Revenue  Act,\t1956
\n(Rajasthan  Act\t 15  of 1956) but not defined  in  this\t Act
\nshall,\twherever  used\therein,\t be construed  to  have\t the
\nmeaning assigned to them by those Acts.\n<\/p>\n
      In  sub-section(7)  of section 2 it is laid down\tthat
\nthe  words  and\t expression  used to denote  the  person  in
\npossession  of any right, title or interest shall be  deemed
\nto  include the predecessors and successors in right,  title
\nor interest of such person.\n<\/p>\n
      Section  3 which is the provision regarding overriding
\neffect\tof  this Act over other laws provides that  save  as
\notherwise  expressly provided in this Act, the provisions of
\nthis  Act, and of the rules and orders made thereunder shall
\nhave  effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith
\ncontained  in any other law and rules for the time being  in
\nforce  or any instrument having effect by virtue of any\t law
\nor  usage, agreement, settlement, grant sanad or any  decree
\nor order of any court of other authority.\n<\/p>\n
      Chapter  II  of  the Act comprises of  the  provisions
\nregarding Abolition of Zamindari and Biswedari Estates.\n<\/p>\n
      In  section  5 which is included in the  said  chapter
\nprovisions  are\t made regarding consequences  of  abolition.
\nThe  relevant portions of the section are quoted hereunder :\n<\/p>\n
5.  Consequences of abolition (1)<\/p>\n
      XXX XXX XXX<\/p>\n
      (2)  As  from the date of vesting of any Zamindari  or
\nBiswedari  estate  in the State Government,  notwithstanding
\nanything  contained in any contract, grant or other document
\nor  in\tany  law  for the time being in force  but  save  as
\notherwise provided in this Act-\n<\/p>\n
      (a)such  estate  shall stand transferred to, and\tvest
\nin, the State Government free from all encumbrances.\n<\/p>\n
      (b)the  right,  title and interest of the Zamindar  or
\nBiswedar  and of every person claiming through him, in\tsuch
\nestate,\t including  land  (cultivable,\t waste\tor   barren)
\ngrove-land,  grass  land  or birs,  scrub  jungle,  forests,
\ntrees,\tfisheries, hills, wells tanks, ponds, water  courses
\nand channels, ferries, pathways, village sites, abadi sites,
\nhats,  bazars,\tmeans and mela grounds, and in all sub\tsoil
\ntherein,  including  rights, if any, in quarries  and  mines
\nwhether\t being worked or not and in all mineral and  mineral
\nproducts, shall cease and be vested in the State Government,
\nfree  from all encumbrances, for the purposes of the  State,
\nand  every mortgage, debt or charge on any such right, title
\nor  interest shall be a charge on the amount of compensation
\npayable to the Zamindar or Biswedar under this Act;\n<\/p>\n
      XXX XXX XXX<\/p>\n
      (d)  every right, title or interest created in or over
\nsuch   estate\tby  the\t Zamindar   or\t Biswedar   or\t his
\npredecessor-in-interest\t  shall,   as\tagainst\t the   State
\nGovernment,  cease  and determine;  all rents and cesses  in
\nrespect\t of any holdings in such estate for any period after
\nthe date of vesting, which, but for such vesting, would have
\nbeen  payable to the Zamindar or Biswedar, shall vest in and
\nbe  payable to the State Government, and any payment made in
\ncontravention  of this clause shall not be a valid discharge
\nof the person liable to pay the same;\n<\/p>\n
      XXX XXX XXX<\/p>\n
      (j)  every  mortgage with possession existing on\tsuch
\nestate or part thereof on the date immediately preceding the
\ndate  of vesting shall, to the extent of the amount  secured
\non  such estate or part, be deemed, without prejudice to the
\nrights\tof the State Government under this section, to\thave
\nbeen substituted by a simple mortgage;\n<\/p>\n
      (k)  no  claim  or liability enforceable\tor  incurred
\nbefore\tthe  date of vesting against or by the\tZamindar  or
\nBiswedar  for any money which is charged on or in secured by
\na  mortgage of such estate or part thereof shall, except  as
\nprovided in section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
\n(Central  Act IV of 1882), be enforceable against his right,
\ntitle or interest in such estate or part;\n<\/p>\n
      (l)  Subject  to\tany rules made in this\tbehalf,\t all
\nsuits  and  proceedings\t affecting such\t estate,  in  which,
\nbecause\t of the same having vesting in the State Government,
\nthe  latter  will be a neessary part, pending in any  court,
\ncivil  or revenue, at the date of vesting and all proceeding
\nconsequent upon any decree or orders passed in any such suit
\nor  proceeding before such date, shall not be proceeded with
\ntill,  on  an  application made in that\t behalf,  the  State
\nGovernment is made a party thereto;\n<\/p>\n
      XXX XXX XXX<\/p>\n
      (4)Notwithstanding  anything contained in\t sub-section
\n(2)  the  Zamindar  or\tBiswedar   shall,  subject  to\t the
\nprovisions  of section 29, continue to retain the possession
\nof  his Khudkasht, recorded as such in the annual  registers
\nbefore the date of vesting.  (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
      Section  29 of the Act which is included in Chapter V-
\nMiscellaneous  contains provision regarding Khatedari rights
\nin  Khudkasht  land.   In  sub-section\t(1)  thereof  it  is
\nprovided  that as from the date of vesting of an estate, the
\nZamindar  or  Biswedar\tthereof\t shall be  a  Malik  of\t any
\nkhudkasht  land in his occupation on such date and shall, as
\nsuch  Malik, be entitled to all the rights conferred and  be
\nsubject\t to all the liabilities imposed on a khatedar tenant
\nby  or\tunder the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.\t Sub-section
\n(2)  of the section is not relevant for the present purpose.
\n(emphasis  supplied)  Section  30  contains  the  provisions
\nregarding  rights  of  tenants\tin  estate.   Sub-section(1)
\nthereof\t provides that subject to the provisions of sections
\n15,  15A,  15B\tand 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy\t Act,  every
\ntenant\tin an estate, other than a tenant of Khudkasht or  a
\nsub-tenant,  shall,  as\t from the date of  vesting,  be\t the
\nkhatedar tenant of the land comprised in his holding, unless
\nhe  has acquired Khatedari rights therein before such  date,
\nand  shall,  as from the date of vesting, pay to  the  State
\nGovernment,  until rents are settled in accordance with\t the
\nprovisions   of\t the  Rajasthan\t  Land\tRevenue\t Act,\t1956
\n(Rajasthan  Act No.15 of 1956), by way of rent therefor\t the
\nsame  amount  as  he  had been paying  to  the\tZamindar  or
\nBiswedar  immediately  before  such date but  not  exceeding
\ntwice\tthe  land  revenue   payable  in  respect   thereof.
\nSub-section(2)\tof  the said section lays down that  upon  a
\nZamindar  or Biswedar becoming a Malik of his Khudkasht land
\nunder  section\t29, every tenant of such Khudkasht shall  be
\nthe  sub-tenant of the land in his occupation holding  under
\nand from such Malik.\n<\/p>\n
      The expression Khudkasht is defined in section 5(23)
\nof  the\t Act  to  mean\t land in  any  part  of\t the  State
\ncultivated  personally by an estate-holder and shall include\n<\/p>\n
  (i)  land recorded as khudkasht, sir, havala, niji-  jot,
\ngharkhed  in settlement records at the commencement of\tthis
\nAct  in\t accordance with law in force at the time when\tsuch
\nrecord was made, and<\/p>\n
      (ii)   land  allotted  after   such  commencement\t  as
\nkhudkasht  under any law for the time being in force in\t any
\npart of the State.\n<\/p>\n
      In  Section  5(46)  Zamindar is defined  to  mean\t a
\nperson on whom a village or portion of a village in any part
\nof  the State is settled on the Zamindari system and who  is
\nrecorded as such in the record of rights and shall include a
\nproprietor  as\tdefined\t in clause(a) of section  2  of\t the
\nMadhya\tBharat Zamindari Abolition Act, Samvat 2008  (Madhya
\nBharat Act of 1951), if any, in the Sunel area.\n<\/p>\n
      Section 43 contains the provisions regarding mortgage.
\nThe portions of the said section relevant for the purpose of
\nthe case are extracted below :\t43.  XXXXX XXXXX XXXX<\/p>\n
      (3)A  usufructuary  mortgage   under  sub-  section(2)
\nshall, upon the expiry of the period mentioned hereinbefore,
\nbe deemed to have been satisfied in full without any payment
\nwhatsoever  by the mortgagor, and the mortgage debt shall be
\ndeemed\tto  have  been extinguished and the  mortgaged\tland
\nredeemed  and  the possession thereof shall be delivered  by
\nthe mortgagee to the mortgagor free from all encumbrances.\n<\/p>\n
      (4)  A  usufructuary mortgage of any land made  before
\nthe  commencement of this Act shall, upon the expiry of\t the
\nperiod\tmentioned in the mortgage deed or twenty years\tfrom
\nthe  date of execution thereof, whichever period is less, be
\ndeemed\tto  have been satisfied in full without any  payment
\nwhatsoever  by\tthe  mortgagor and the mortgage\t debt  shall
\naccordingly   be  deemed  to   have  been  extinguished\t and
\nthereupon   the\t mortgaged  land   shall  be  redeemed\t and
\npossession  thereof shall be delivered to the mortgagor free
\nfrom all encumbrances.\n<\/p>\n
      Section  183 of the Act under which the suit was filed
\nreads as follows:  183.Ejectment of certain trespassers (1)
\nNotwithstanding anything to the contrary in any provision of
\nthis Act, a tresspasser who has taken or retained possession
\nof  any\t land  without lawful authority shall be  liable  to
\nejectment,   subject   to  the\t  provision   contained\t  in
\nsub-section(2),\t on  the  suit\tof  the\t person\t or  persons
\nentitled to eject him, and shall be further liable to pay as
\npenalty\t for each agricultural year, during the whole or any
\npart whereof he has been in such possession, a sum which may
\nextend to fifteen times the annual rent.\n<\/p>\n
      (2)  In  case of land which is held directly from\t the
\nState  Government  or to which the State  Government  acting
\nthrough\t the Tehsildar, is entitled to admit the  trespasser
\nas  tenant,  the Tehsildar shall proceed in accordance\twith
\nthe  provisions of section 91 of the Rajasthan Land  Revenue
\nAct, 1956 (Rajasthan Act 15 of 1956).\n<\/p>\n
      On  a  reading  of  the provisions  of  the  Zamindari
\nAbolition Act noted above it is clear that a Zamindar who is
\nin  possession\/occupation  of Khudkasht land on the date  of
\nvesting of the estate becomes a Khatedar tenant on abolition
\nof  the\t Zamindari right under section 29 of  the  Zamindari
\nAbolition  Act.\t Under the said section a Zamindar becomes a
\nMalik  of the Khudkasht land in his occupation and as  Malik
\nhe shall be entitled to all the rights conferred and all the
\nliabilities  imposed  on a Khatedar tenant by or  under\t the
\nAct.   It follows as a corollary that if the Zamindar is not
\nin  occupation of the Khudkasht land on the date of  vesting
\nhe  is\tnot entitled to claim Khatedari right in  the  land.
\nThe  scheme  behind this provision is that if a Zamindar  or
\nBiswedar  is in actual occupation of cultivable land on\t the
\ndate  of  abolition  of his Zamindari right then  he  should
\ncontinue  to  be  in possession of such land.\tThis  is  in
\naccordance  with  the  object  of  bringing  about  agrarian
\nreforms\t by  giving  the land to the person  in\t cultivating
\npossession  of\tthe  land.   If\t  the  Zamindar\t is  not  in
\noccupation of the Khudkasht land on the date of vesting then
\nsuch  land vests in the State along with the other lands
\nsubject\t to  the provisions in the Zamindari Abolition\tAct.
\nIn  respect  of such land Zamindar is not entitled to  claim
\nany  right of possession and consequentially is not entitled
\nto  maintain  a suit for recovery of possession of the\tland
\nfrom  any  other person.  In the case of Budha\tVs.   Amilal
\n(supra)\t a  Division  Bench of this Court  interpreting\t the
\nprovisions  of sections 29 , 5(2)(a), (b),(j), 5(4) and 2(6)
\nof  the\t Zamindari Abolition Act and sections  5(23)(I)\t and
\n(25)  of  the Rajasthan Tenancy Act held :  Even if  it\t is
\nassumed\t that  the  lands in dispute have to be\t treated  as
\nKhudkasht  lands of the appellant by virtue of clause (I) of
\nthe   inclusive\t part  of   the\t definition  of\t Khudkasht
\ncontained in Section 5(23) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the
\nappellant  cannot succeed in his claim that he has  acquired
\nKhatedari  rights in respect of those lands on the basis  of
\nthe  provisions\t contained in sub- section (4) of Section  5
\nand  sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Act.\t Sub-section
\n(4)  of\t Section  5 provides that  notwithstanding  anything
\ncontained  in  sub-section (2) of Section 5 the Zamindar  or
\nBiswedar  shall\t subject  to the provisions of\tSection\t 29,
\ncontinue to retain the possession of his Khudkasht, recorded
\nas  such in the annual registers before the date of vesting.
\nThe  words  continue to retain the possession, imply  that
\nlands which are recorded as Khudkasht in the annual register
\nbefore\tthe  date of vesting should be in possession of\t the
\nZamindar  or  Biswedar on the date of vesting.\tIf he is  in
\npossession  of\tsuch  lands he can continue  to\t retain\t the
\npossession  of the same subject to the provisions of Section\n<\/p>\n
29.   Sub-section(1)  of Section 29 prescribes that as\tfrom
\nthe  date of vesting of an estate, the Zamindar or  Biswedar
\nthereof\t shall\tbe  a  malik of any Khudkasht  land  in\t his
\noccupation  on\tsuch  date  and shall,\tas  such  malik,  be
\nentitled  to all rights conferred and the subject to all the
\nliabilities  imposed  on a Khatedar tenant by or  under\t the
\nRajasthan  Tenancy  Act.   Under  this\tprovision  Khatedari
\nrights\thave  been  statutorily conferred on a\tZamindar  or
\nBiswedar  as  from the date of the vesting of the estate  in
\nrespect\t of  Khudkasht\tlands  in  the\toccupation  of\tsuch
\nZamindar  or  Biswedar\ton  such date.\tThe  words  in\this
\noccupation  on such date postulates that the lands,  though
\nKhudkasht,  should  be in the occupation of the Zamindar  or
\nBiswedar  on  the date of vesting of the estate.   It  would
\nthus appear that in view of sub- section(4) of Section 5 and
\nsub-section(1)\tof  Section 29 of the Act the mere  fact  of
\nrecording of the land as Khudkasht in the settlement records
\non the date of vesting would not be enough for a Zamindar or
\nBiswedar  to  acquire Khatedari rights over the said  lands;
\nthe Zamindar or Biswedar should be in possession\/ occupation
\nof the said lands on the date of vesting of the estate under
\nthe  Act.   The\t possession\/occupation\t envisaged  by\tsub-
\nsection(4)  of Section 5 and sub-section(1) of Section 29 of
\nthe  Act is actual possession\/occupation and the  possession
\nof a mortgagor through the mortgagee cannot be held to be in
\npossession  or occupation as postulated in sub-section(4) of
\nSection 5 and sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the  present case the appellant has come  forward
\nwith  a specific case in the plaint that the defendant is in
\npossession  of the lands in dispute as a mortgagee from\t the
\ndate  of  the two mortgagees.  In other words the  appellant
\nwas  not  in possession\/occupation of the said lands on\t the
\ndate  of  vesting of the estate of the appellant  under\t the
\nAct.   The  appellant  cannot,\ttherefore,  claim  Khatedari
\nrights in respect of the lands in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
      On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the
\ncase  as  revealed  from  the materials on  record  and\t the
\nrelevant provisions of the Zamindari Abolition Act it is our
\nconsidered  view  that\tthe  principles laid  down  and\t the
\nobservations  made in Budha Vs.\t Amilal (supra) apply in all
\nforce  to  the\tpresent\t case.\tWe are\talso  in  respectful
\nagreement  with\t the  principles  laid\t down  in  the\tsaid
\ndecision.   Therefore,\tthe appellants cannot be said to  be
\nkhatedar  tenants  of  the  land in  dispute.\tThe  first
\nquestion  formulated earlier is answered in the negative and
\nin  view of that answer the further question does not  arise
\nfor  consideration.  The High Court was right in  dismissing
\nthe suit.  The appeal is dismissed.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bir Singh & Ors vs Pyare Singh & Ors on 6 March, 2000 Author: D.P.Mohapatra Bench: S.S.Ahmad, D.P.Mohapatro PETITIONER: BIR SINGH & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: PYARE SINGH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/03\/2000 BENCH: S.S.Ahmad, D.P.Mohapatro JUDGMENT: D.P.MOHAPATRA,J. On analysis of the case of the parties and the contentions raised on […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBir Singh & Ors vs Pyare Singh & Ors on 6 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bir Singh & Ors vs Pyare Singh & Ors on 6 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-28T02:14:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bir Singh & Ors vs Pyare Singh & Ors on 6 March, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-28T02:14:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3477,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000\",\"name\":\"Bir Singh & Ors vs Pyare Singh & Ors on 6 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-03-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-28T02:14:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bir Singh & Ors vs Pyare Singh & Ors on 6 March, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bir Singh & Ors vs Pyare Singh & Ors on 6 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bir Singh & Ors vs Pyare Singh & Ors on 6 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-28T02:14:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bir Singh & Ors vs Pyare Singh & Ors on 6 March, 2000","datePublished":"2000-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-28T02:14:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000"},"wordCount":3477,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000","name":"Bir Singh & Ors vs Pyare Singh & Ors on 6 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-03-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-28T02:14:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bir-singh-ors-vs-pyare-singh-ors-on-6-march-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bir Singh & Ors vs Pyare Singh & Ors on 6 March, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25167","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25167"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25167\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}